The games pretty awful, I didn't think the single player was any good, but  I'm not really interested in the single player aspects of RTS games, the multiplayer is were it is at and as far as the multiplayer goes CNC 3 has some of the worst in RTS history.

The online community has shrunk drastically over the last 6 weeks or so because the game has horrid balance.

If you just watch a replay of a good player using Scorpion spam and then copy him like most the community has now done you will probably never ever loose to another strategy simply because the game is just so poorly balanced.

EA has hyped and claimed they have a super patch coming up that will wash away most the problems, but I wouldn't count on it as if you look at EA's past RTS games to this day they all really do still display poor balance.

If you want a good RTS game I suggest you go with either Company of Heroes or Supreme Commander, if the Supcom system requirements have scared you off you really should worry about that now as the new patch that just came out for it heavily optimized the game to the point you will be able to run it fine as long as you have a 3000xp/P4 3GHZ  1 gig of ram and a 6600GT or better. 

The auto aim on all the console games is really pathetic, seriously console shooters are just pathetic, you know this when you see how awful the holy grail of console FPS scores on the PC (Halo 2)

The argument that controllers are more challenging is an idiotic one, thats like saying playing games with your feet is better because it's more challenging.

As gamers the tool we use to interact with the game shouldn't create a large part of the difficulty, thats just stupid! The difficulty needs to be in the AI!

 And besides that, that argument is completely void when it comes to online play as everyone has basicaly the same tools.

BlackAce you are lieing to yourself if you actually believe you can dominate online in PC FPS games. I actually bet you fair better against the sad controller users then you do agaisnt the PC crowd

is it just me or is driving in this game unbeleivable tough?WhySoCry

You must just be awful at driving games, the game seemed to be ultra easy to me, if you think this games hard stay FAR away from richard burns rally as it makes DIRT look like a cake walk.

I played it on the XBox 360 (though I do not know if there is any difference). My impressions is that it's just a arcade rally game with nice visuals. The driving felt completely arcadish (though I am judging it against games like Richard Burns Rally). I dunno...it just felt silly like a rally need for speed game.dnuggs40

I wouldn't call it arcadish, but it definitely isn't even close to a realistic as Richard Burns is, but thats by far the most realistic racing game their is so...

yea im running it maxed out and it looks awesome, im definitely buying it! jamserver

I should also mention that I can almost max out the game getting around 25+ frames a second if it's a a res of 1024 by 768,

 I definitely will also be getting it once I get a better video card :) 

Anyone play it yet? What you think?

Few things I want to say about it, the game seems pretty fun, if you enjoyed the earlier Colin McRae games you should like this one.

The game has great physics and awsome damage models, some of the best I've seen.

Graphically I think this game actually looks better then Oblivion, they make excellent use of blur much in the same way Crysis does.

Performance Wise I have to say I was a bit dissapointed, as even on the lowest settings (Res 1680 by 1050) I was only getting about 28 frames a second on my decent rig (FX62 X1800XT 512MB 1GB) Though I should say even on the lowest settings the game still looks fantastic, Seriously even on the lowest settings the game looks even better then GTR2 maxed out minus the shadows which look bad on low.

The games jaw dropping on the highest settings. I had to max it out and see what it looked like even though I only got 2 frames a second when doing so :P

Unstoppable: Your PC is fine, but your CPU is your bottleneck. You might be able to up to 2v2 games online on medium-smallish maps with decent performance.

How well do you run the demo now? I know its not a great benchmark, but atleast it might give us an idea.

KorJax

 Surprisingly I've played some 3 vs 3's with single core users fine! Amazing!

Unstoppable: Your PC is fine, but your CPU is your bottleneck. You might be able to up to 2v2 games online on medium-smallish maps with decent performance.

How well do you run the demo now? I know its not a great benchmark, but atleast it might give us an idea.

 

They really need to mae a new demo the one they have is a mess tbh :(

GPG is talking about a new demo in light of all the phenominal advancements they've made since. 

KorJax

Do you guys think my system can handle thsi game now?

AMD Athlon Xp 2100+ (1.73ghz)
ATI RADEON SAPPHIRE PRO X1650 512MB DDR AGP X8
2GB DDR RAM 2100+ (i know a bit slower ram)
MSI motherboard K7n2G (For gaming)
Strong powersupply a thermaltake 430 watts
40GB HDD but with plenty of space empty.

Unstoppable_1

You can run it, but I suggest you buy a X2 dual core CPU as it will give you huge performance gains andthey are dirt cheap.

You can get a dual core for 50 to 70 bucks, but you'd need a new mobo to :( your ram will work in any socket 939 mobo

So your looking at 110 bucks roughly for a big boost.